Amendments to plaint should not be denied solely on grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction; the trial court must allow amendments and transfer to the appropriate court.

7. Joint II Sub Registrar, Having office at Sankara Naidu Street, Tirupapuliyur – 607 002. ...Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India , to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 08.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.125/2022 in O.S.No.160 of 2020 on the file of Ist Addl. Sub Judge, Cuddalore by allowing the Revision Petition.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.S.Baskaran For Respondents : Ms.J.Pooja for : Mr.D.Baskar, for R1 : Mr.D.Gopal, GA, for R4 to R7 : Notice not ready, for R2 : No Appearance, for R3

ORDER

The plaintiffs whose application for amendment to the plaint to incorporate the relief of declaration of their title has been rejected, are before this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the only ground on which the application has been dismissed by the Trial Court is that in view of the declaratory relief sought for by the plaintiffs by way of amendment, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to try the matter goes and the matter would have to be necessarily tried by the District Court and therefore, on the said ground, the amendment itself had been refused. Learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the amendment was necessitated only in view of the stand taken in the written statement, denying the title of the plaintiffs. Therefore, he states that the suit originally filed for permanent injunction had to be converted into a declaratory suit, by seeking the additional relief of declaration of their title. He would further state that the proper course of action that was available to the Trial Court was to allow the amendment and return the plaint to be presented before the proper Court and not dismiss the amendment application on this ground.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would state that the plaintiffs have, in addition to the relief of permanent injunction which was originally sought for, also sought for a declaration that decree in O.S.No.88 of 2009 dated 19.01.2010 culminating in E.P.No.45 of 2011 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. She also contends that this defendant is in physical possession and the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek a mere relief of declaration without seeking the relief of possession. She would also state that the relief of declaration which is now sought to be introduced is barred by limitation, since the relief of declaration has not been sought within a period of three years.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and I have also gone through the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the amendment application on the ground that the amendment, if allowed would take away the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to try the matter and hence, the amendment cannot be permitted.

6. The finding of the Trial court that merely because the valuation of the suit is enhanced, it will change the character of the very suit itself is totally unsustainable and unreasonable.

7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the reason that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit would get affected if the amendment is allowed has been the basis on which the amendment application has been dismissed. At the same time, the contention of the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent that the relief of amendment that is prayed for is hopelessly barred by limitation also deserves to considered. However, it cannot be considered at the stage of the amendment application being taken up. The respondents will have an opportunity to file